HalfMeasure Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 We believe the taxpayers will be in a better position to benefit from any GSE profits as they are wound down Then: Is the taxpayer in a worse off position? o No - they are in a better position. Under the current arrangement Treasury's upside was capped at the 10% dividend, now the taxpayer will be the beneficiary of any future earnings produced by the GSEs. Didn't they try to play it off at some point in the Perry case that they didn't expect taxpayers to be any better off under the NWS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 We believe the taxpayers will be in a better position to benefit from any GSE profits as they are wound down Then: Is the taxpayer in a worse off position? o No - they are in a better position. Under the current arrangement Treasury's upside was capped at the 10% dividend, now the taxpayer will be the beneficiary of any future earnings produced by the GSEs. Didn't they try to play it off at some point in the Perry case that they didn't expect taxpayers to be any better off under the NWS? there was advocacy in oral argument by i believe fhfa lawyer that govt thought the economic effect of NWS would be a wash. i am not sure this "better position" language directly contradicts this, because you can be in a better position but not be able to realize upon this if profits dont grow. just generally, i havent seen a smoking gun in any of this discovery, but it is certainly true that all this material was before the govt at time of making NWS decision and should have been included in administrative record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
investorG Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 just generally, i havent seen a smoking gun in any of this discovery, but it is certainly true that all this material was before the govt at time of making NWS decision and should have been included in administrative record. is it safe to say that this 3rd request for additional documents, if agreed, would be the last one submitted before a decision is made, ie they have to cut it off at some point? or would they try to look at some of the 12k documents and then include those in a 4th request to the perry appeals court? thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 if fairholme gets more docs that it thinks is important for the perry appeals court to see, then they will make additional judicial notice requests. might even try to force them to issue their opinion already so as not to deal with them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HalfMeasure Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 We believe the taxpayers will be in a better position to benefit from any GSE profits as they are wound down Then: Is the taxpayer in a worse off position? o No - they are in a better position. Under the current arrangement Treasury's upside was capped at the 10% dividend, now the taxpayer will be the beneficiary of any future earnings produced by the GSEs. Didn't they try to play it off at some point in the Perry case that they didn't expect taxpayers to be any better off under the NWS? there was advocacy in oral argument by i believe fhfa lawyer that govt thought the economic effect of NWS would be a wash. i am not sure this "better position" language directly contradicts this, because you can be in a better position but not be able to realize upon this if profits dont grow. just generally, i havent seen a smoking gun in any of this discovery, but it is certainly true that all this material was before the govt at time of making NWS decision and should have been included in administrative record. Yeah it seems that what has been brought public thus far is only enough to get the sense that this was much more premeditated and directed than the "death spiral" associated narrative outlines - but as you said, no smoking gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynnstone5 Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 We believe the taxpayers will be in a better position to benefit from any GSE profits as they are wound down Then: Is the taxpayer in a worse off position? o No - they are in a better position. Under the current arrangement Treasury's upside was capped at the 10% dividend, now the taxpayer will be the beneficiary of any future earnings produced by the GSEs. Didn't they try to play it off at some point in the Perry case that they didn't expect taxpayers to be any better off under the NWS? there was advocacy in oral argument by i believe fhfa lawyer that govt thought the economic effect of NWS would be a wash. i am not sure this "better position" language directly contradicts this, because you can be in a better position but not be able to realize upon this if profits dont grow. just generally, i havent seen a smoking gun in any of this discovery, but it is certainly true that all this material was before the govt at time of making NWS decision and should have been included in administrative record. Why wouldn't the fact that there was never any intention to act as a conservator, but instead wind down the companies not be a smoking gun? My background is not in law, but I don't understand how the gov can make blatantly false claims to the lower court and selectively omit key info. from the record to get a desired ruling, yet not have these new docs be enough for appeals ct to clearly see this. In any event, I absolutely trust the assessment from the legal experts here. Can you give an indication of what would be considered in your view a smoking gun? Lets hope the new batch has something significant and is added to the record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynnstone5 Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 2015: WASHINGTON, DC — Fannie Mae (FNMA/OTC) reported annual net income of $11.0 billion and annual comprehensive income of $10.6 billion in 2015. For the fourth quarter of 2015, Fannie Mae reported net income of $2.5 billion and comprehensive income of $2.3 billion. The company reported a positive net worth of $4.1 billion as of December 31, 2015, resulting in a dividend obligation to Treasury of $2.9 billion, which the company expects to pay in March 2016. 2016: WASHINGTON, DC — Fannie Mae (FNMA/OTC) reported annual net income of $12.3 billion and annual comprehensive income of $11.7 billion in 2016. For the fourth quarter of 2016, Fannie Mae reported net income of $5.0 billion and comprehensive income of $4.9 billion. The company reported a positive net worth of $6.1 billion as of December 31, 2016. As a result, the company expects to pay Treasury a $5.5 billion dividend in March 2017. Does anyone think the removal of "dividend obligation" has any significance considering all indications are they are sweeping in March? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rros Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 We believe the taxpayers will be in a better position to benefit from any GSE profits as they are wound down Then: Is the taxpayer in a worse off position? o No - they are in a better position. Under the current arrangement Treasury's upside was capped at the 10% dividend, now the taxpayer will be the beneficiary of any future earnings produced by the GSEs. Didn't they try to play it off at some point in the Perry case that they didn't expect taxpayers to be any better off under the NWS? there was advocacy in oral argument by i believe fhfa lawyer that govt thought the economic effect of NWS would be a wash. i am not sure this "better position" language directly contradicts this, because you can be in a better position but not be able to realize upon this if profits dont grow. just generally, i havent seen a smoking gun in any of this discovery, but it is certainly true that all this material was before the govt at time of making NWS decision and should have been included in administrative record. Yeah it seems that what has been brought public thus far is only enough to get the sense that this was much more premeditated and directed than the "death spiral" associated narrative outlines - but as you said, no smoking gun. The smoking gun is the fact that the government understood there was going to be *more* of something that was not going to be captured by the 10% established in the original agreement. And that capturing that excess would mean favoring only 1 actor to the detriment of all others. Had the government thought there was a death spiral or an irreversible melt down of the companies none of this language would have existed. It only exists because they were alerted of a melt up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 2015: WASHINGTON, DC — Fannie Mae (FNMA/OTC) reported annual net income of $11.0 billion and annual comprehensive income of $10.6 billion in 2015. For the fourth quarter of 2015, Fannie Mae reported net income of $2.5 billion and comprehensive income of $2.3 billion. The company reported a positive net worth of $4.1 billion as of December 31, 2015, resulting in a dividend obligation to Treasury of $2.9 billion, which the company expects to pay in March 2016. 2016: WASHINGTON, DC — Fannie Mae (FNMA/OTC) reported annual net income of $12.3 billion and annual comprehensive income of $11.7 billion in 2016. For the fourth quarter of 2016, Fannie Mae reported net income of $5.0 billion and comprehensive income of $4.9 billion. The company reported a positive net worth of $6.1 billion as of December 31, 2016. As a result, the company expects to pay Treasury a $5.5 billion dividend in March 2017. Does anyone think the removal of "dividend obligation" has any significance considering all indications are they are sweeping in March? it never was an obligation in my view, as a matter of delaware corporate law. but i do think removing the div oblig reference, like adding scheduled in fmcc, is not the sort of changes in an earnings release that are just made willy nilly. that fhfa was cool with them is also interesting as tim howard points out. seems to me both fmcc and fnma acknowledge that whether or not the dividends will actually be made will be decided in future and has not been decided yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynnstone5 Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 We believe the taxpayers will be in a better position to benefit from any GSE profits as they are wound down Then: Is the taxpayer in a worse off position? o No - they are in a better position. Under the current arrangement Treasury's upside was capped at the 10% dividend, now the taxpayer will be the beneficiary of any future earnings produced by the GSEs. Didn't they try to play it off at some point in the Perry case that they didn't expect taxpayers to be any better off under the NWS? there was advocacy in oral argument by i believe fhfa lawyer that govt thought the economic effect of NWS would be a wash. i am not sure this "better position" language directly contradicts this, because you can be in a better position but not be able to realize upon this if profits dont grow. just generally, i havent seen a smoking gun in any of this discovery, but it is certainly true that all this material was before the govt at time of making NWS decision and should have been included in administrative record. Yeah it seems that what has been brought public thus far is only enough to get the sense that this was much more premeditated and directed than the "death spiral" associated narrative outlines - but as you said, no smoking gun. The smoking gun is the fact that the government understood there was going to be *more* of something that was not going to be captured by the 10% established in the original agreement. And that capturing that excess would mean favoring only 1 actor to the detriment of all others. Had the government thought there was a death spiral or an irreversible melt down of the companies none of this language would have existed. It only exists because they were alerted of a melt up. I would infer same, but the legal experts here don't seem to think that's the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rros Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 We believe the taxpayers will be in a better position to benefit from any GSE profits as they are wound down Then: Is the taxpayer in a worse off position? o No - they are in a better position. Under the current arrangement Treasury's upside was capped at the 10% dividend, now the taxpayer will be the beneficiary of any future earnings produced by the GSEs. Didn't they try to play it off at some point in the Perry case that they didn't expect taxpayers to be any better off under the NWS? there was advocacy in oral argument by i believe fhfa lawyer that govt thought the economic effect of NWS would be a wash. i am not sure this "better position" language directly contradicts this, because you can be in a better position but not be able to realize upon this if profits dont grow. just generally, i havent seen a smoking gun in any of this discovery, but it is certainly true that all this material was before the govt at time of making NWS decision and should have been included in administrative record. Yeah it seems that what has been brought public thus far is only enough to get the sense that this was much more premeditated and directed than the "death spiral" associated narrative outlines - but as you said, no smoking gun. The smoking gun is the fact that the government understood there was going to be *more* of something that was not going to be captured by the 10% established in the original agreement. And that capturing that excess would mean favoring only 1 actor to the detriment of all others. Had the government thought there was a death spiral or an irreversible melt down of the companies none of this language would have existed. It only exists because they were alerted of a melt up. I would infer same, but the legal experts here don't seem to think that's the case. Possibly. But we will not find an email that says DTAs will revive the companies and make vulture speculators rich. That conversation may have happened around some water cooler. So what is the best second smoking gun we could hope for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynnstone5 Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 2015: WASHINGTON, DC — Fannie Mae (FNMA/OTC) reported annual net income of $11.0 billion and annual comprehensive income of $10.6 billion in 2015. For the fourth quarter of 2015, Fannie Mae reported net income of $2.5 billion and comprehensive income of $2.3 billion. The company reported a positive net worth of $4.1 billion as of December 31, 2015, resulting in a dividend obligation to Treasury of $2.9 billion, which the company expects to pay in March 2016. 2016: WASHINGTON, DC — Fannie Mae (FNMA/OTC) reported annual net income of $12.3 billion and annual comprehensive income of $11.7 billion in 2016. For the fourth quarter of 2016, Fannie Mae reported net income of $5.0 billion and comprehensive income of $4.9 billion. The company reported a positive net worth of $6.1 billion as of December 31, 2016. As a result, the company expects to pay Treasury a $5.5 billion dividend in March 2017. Does anyone think the removal of "dividend obligation" has any significance considering all indications are they are sweeping in March? it never was an obligation in my view, as a matter of delaware corporate law. but i do think removing the div oblig reference, like adding scheduled in fmcc, is not the sort of changes in an earnings release that are just made willy nilly. that fhfa was cool with them is also interesting as tim howard points out. seems to me both fmcc and fnma acknowledge that whether or not the dividends will actually be made will be decided in future and has not been decided yet 2014 language is also same: The company reported a positive net worth of $3.7 billion as of December 31, 2014, resulting in a dividend obligation to Treasury of $1.9 billion, which the company expects to pay in March 2015. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynnstone5 Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 We believe the taxpayers will be in a better position to benefit from any GSE profits as they are wound down Then: Is the taxpayer in a worse off position? o No - they are in a better position. Under the current arrangement Treasury's upside was capped at the 10% dividend, now the taxpayer will be the beneficiary of any future earnings produced by the GSEs. Didn't they try to play it off at some point in the Perry case that they didn't expect taxpayers to be any better off under the NWS? there was advocacy in oral argument by i believe fhfa lawyer that govt thought the economic effect of NWS would be a wash. i am not sure this "better position" language directly contradicts this, because you can be in a better position but not be able to realize upon this if profits dont grow. just generally, i havent seen a smoking gun in any of this discovery, but it is certainly true that all this material was before the govt at time of making NWS decision and should have been included in administrative record. Yeah it seems that what has been brought public thus far is only enough to get the sense that this was much more premeditated and directed than the "death spiral" associated narrative outlines - but as you said, no smoking gun. The smoking gun is the fact that the government understood there was going to be *more* of something that was not going to be captured by the 10% established in the original agreement. And that capturing that excess would mean favoring only 1 actor to the detriment of all others. Had the government thought there was a death spiral or an irreversible melt down of the companies none of this language would have existed. It only exists because they were alerted of a melt up. I would infer same, but the legal experts here don't seem to think that's the case. Possibly. But we will not find an email that says DTAs will revive the companies and make vulture speculators rich. That conversation may have happened around some water cooler. So what is the best second smoking gun we could hope for? Right. I hope that the best is yet to come in the 40+ we haven't seen. Like to see merket, cherzeca, hardincap and steve_berk all saying, holy shit....have you see this!....lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynnstone5 Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 Tim Howard: The bigger change in Fannie’s press release is in the table titled “Treasury Draws and Dividend Payments: 2008-2016” on page 8. In previous years Fannie simply titled this table “Treasury Draws and Dividend Payments,” and included the payment it expected to make in the first quarter of the following year, both in the bar graph and a box within that graph (which, in the 2015 10K, showed “Total Dividend Payments Through 1Q 2016, with a footnote explaining that it expected to pay the first quarter amount based on its fourth quarter 2015 earnings). In the 2016 10K that came out this morning, this same table shows just the payments made through the end of 2016. The expected payment for the first quarter of 2017 is discussed verbally in the paragraph following the table, but, in contrast to the presentation in previous years, appears nowhere in the table itself. Like the change in the wording in Freddie’s press release yesterday, this presentational change by Fannie was deliberate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no_free_lunch Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 Jared Kushner relinquished control of his family’s multibillion-dollar real-estate business in January to eliminate conflicts of interest when he became a top White House adviser to his father-in-law, President Donald Trump. .. During Kushner’s tenure leading the company, he oversaw the acquisition of 11 properties and three refinancings funded by $581 million from Fannie and Freddie, according to real-estate data firm Real Capital Analytics. Real Capital includes in its loan tallies any buildings for which records show Kushner Cos. has an ownership stake. About $568.8 million is outstanding on those Fannie and Freddie loans, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-02-17/kushner-s-use-of-u-s-backed-apartment-loans-poses-conflict-risk This is both good and bad. Good in that it argues against a wind down of the enterprises. Bad in that it doesn't help with public perception. Overall though, net positive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Gee, I wonder if this is going to settle? ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Remand. Stage is set for settlement. Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge Millett and Senior Circuit Judge Ginsburg. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge Brown.Remand_2-21-2017.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Remand. Stage is set for settlement. Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge Millett and Senior Circuit Judge Ginsburg. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge Brown. The contract claims survive and are remanded to the district court for further proceedings. http://bit.ly/2l3P8k4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Thoughts/analysis from the attorneys on the board? Thanks in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orthopa Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Market not liking the opinion, thats for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Thoughts/analysis from the attorneys on the board? Thanks in advance. About to board a flight. Will read on the plane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardincap Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 not totally surprised here. like it or not, lamberth's narrow reading of hera's anti injunction bar is not an invalid one, as demonstrated here. but brown's judicially activist reading isn't invalid either. judge g was the toss up for me and now we know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeerBBQ Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Will this ruling encourage a more serious approach to the Washington Federal suit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midas79 Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 I'm surprised to see the preferreds dropping so much. The contract claims were upheld. I guess the writing on the wall is that waiting for a courts-only solution will take much more time than originally thought. The commons, on the other hand, are getting slaughtered for good reason. The courts hold no succor for them. About the only cards that the plaintiffs hold are the outstanding contractual claims that the court remanded and a possible Supreme Court appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racemize Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 The language on the contractual claims doesn't look that great--just that it needs to be looked at, it seemed to me. So no positive language on the merits of these things. (Very open to correction here) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now